[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0705011344q7fccb586r8a31d2754e76d396@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 02:14:00 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: "Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Roland McGrath" <roland@...hat.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments
On 5/1/07, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > I prefer this format also, but I'm not sure that we can get it
> > into CodingStyle. CodingStyle is about (either) concensus or
> > dictum, but I don't see us close to concensus...
Yes, some of these styles are too personal and subjective to even try
and standardize. And then often even the same person doesn't follow a
single convention across his own code. More likely you'd succeed
standardizing *religion* than this ...
> CodingStyle is mostly about consensus. We don't have a consensus, which
> is why this particular stuff isn't specified in CodingStyle. :)
Actually, I'm not sure if we really gain much by finding consensus for
this particular stuff. Most compound conditions only contain upto 3-4
operators/expressions, so most of the styles discussed here would be
almost equally readable. And any code that goes beyond 3-4
operators/expressions is probably ugly in many other ways and needs to
fix its logic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists